eople who didn't know who the people involved were for this quiz, you said all right here's a list of characteristics of JFK. So President JFK, you know what was he all about? Just describe what he wanted and his policies. And then do a description of Trump and what he wanted but you take out all the hyper so that you're just factually saying JFK wanted this stuff, Trump wants this stuff. I think that would look kind of similar, don't you? There wouldn't be that much difference between what JFK thought was a good idea and what Trump thinks is a good idea. So it's not that big of a leap, weirdly, because the Democrats became wildly left progressive and crazy and Trump is obviously he's more Republican than Democrat but if you were to look at a historical model Trump is pretty commonsensical. So I don't even see Trump as being on the right. I never have really. I mean he has to fit somewhere because we like to put things in boxes so I get that he's in that box but I just see all of his policies as not having a right or left dimension to them. Am I the only one? I just don't see right or left in what he does because he shows you his work. He says this works, this doesn't. This makes sense, this doesn't. And you could look at it yourself and you could say okay there's precedent for why this would work and there's no precedent for why this stupid idea would work. He just seems like the common sense obvious path kind of guy.

Anyway so people are saying would RFK Jr. join a Trump administration? Trump has acted positively about it. I don't know if RFK Jr. has ever answered it. I think you don't answer those questions while you're running. But I'm still fascinated by how many roles you could imagine RFK Jr. taking. This is a real compliment to RFK Jr. because you know I always talk about talent stacks. You want to get as many talents as you can so you're ready for anything. So you could easily imagine RFK Jr. being the head of the CIA to clean it up. You could imagine him being head of the FDA. You could imagine him being attorney general. Maybe there's five more jobs that you can imagine him being the top advisor. But whatever he does I would love to see him be in charge of food and medical drug testing so that we'd have some chance of getting at least a clearer picture of those things.

So anyway I also wonder has it ever been confirmed that RFK Jr. has testosterone supplements? Has he ever talked about that? I feel like I sort of maybe remember he mentioned it because his muscular development suggests that he's doing something that's both legal and very effective for muscle development. So do we know that he's had his testosterone boosted or is it just obvious? I'm seeing some yeses but here's the interesting thing. Do you think that he would consider citing or endorsing Republicans if he had not boosted his testosterone? Think about it. I think it's the defining factor.

And let me tie this into my next story which is you know CNN and MSNBC covering the Democrat convention. They were trying to sell the fact that Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz are the example of the new male role models and that they were different from, and this is actually what the commentators were saying this is not me saying it, it was different from the testosterone-filled macho Republican people. And so both MSNBC and CNN's the women, the female pundits and observers were saying that the Democrats have this new model of male optimal male behavior which is supporting a woman being your boss and that if you could be more let's say less macho Hulk Hogan and less Dana White and more Doug Emhoff and more Tim Walz that that's the model that the Democrats want to put forward as modern male leadership. And then RFK Jr. comes along he's just like bristling with muscles and he's willing to skin a dead bear and he just doesn't fit their model.

So I'm going to say again do you think, now I'm making an assumption here that if we assume that he's at least friendly with the Trump campaign, do we think that he would have any chance of endorsing or working with Trump if he had not boosted his testosterone? Which if I haven't told you this before your body and your brain are the same organ. Your body is your brain. If RFK Jr.'s body is rippling with a high level of testosterone that's his brain and it would make him way less likely to be far left. So don't rule out that this is entirely chemical. I don't think it's about issues and facts because the issues are all lies and the facts are all lies. But you can see testosterone and you could look at the people attending the DNC and you don't see any. It looks like all the testosterone went to another city that day.

Anyway so we'll keep an eye out waiting. What's the time for the RFK Jr. announcement? Does anybody know when that's slated to happen? I haven't seen anything about that yet. Anyway we'll look for that.

This story is funny. There's a story I guess the government's probably saying this that both Russia and Iran are quote waging operations to influence the US elections. All right so the idea is that professional trolls from Russia and from Iran are trying to spread disinformation or put their finger on the scales for our election. Do you see anything about that story that is funny? I do. Everything about our election is disinformation. How are they going to add any extra disinformation? You're watching the DNC and 100 percent of what every person said was a lie. 100 percent. There wasn't I don't think there was anything honest that came out of the entire thing so far. The news is completely fake. Our data is completely made up and the citizens don't even know the made up stuff. If you stop them on the street they barely know the name of the people running for president. So in this context do you think that the Russian and Iranian trolls are going to make a difference?

Let me put this in context for you. Okay because remember that Russia had that troll farm in 2016 and I laughed when I saw their memes like these memes look like they were made in high school. There's no way that had any influence on the election. All right here's what I think. Imagine the Grand Canyon. All right you got that picture in your mind. Gigantic canyon. Now imagine if the entire canyon was filled with cow feces. It was just full of cow crap not just to the top but like 100 feet above the top. Every bit of the Grand Canyon full of feces. Now imagine a pigeon flies over the Grand Canyon that's overflowing with cow feces and the pigeon poops on top of it. That's all of the Russian and Iranian trolls. You put them all together and they're one pigeon pooping on top of a gigantic canyon full of it. If you imagine that they could have any impact when everything's already a lie, 100 percent of what both sides are talking about is just completely left-handed context stuff and things that aren't even true and lies and hoaxes. There's no way that Russia or Iran could add anything to that mix that would make it worse than what it is without their help. They can't make that worse. In what way could you make that worse? To me that's just hilarious. It's so ridiculously not a risk that I can't even believe we're talking about it. I guess there's still an illusion that some of our information is real and that if they added their little pigeon poop of misinformation that suddenly our delicate balance of correct information would be set off. There's no correct information. Good luck birds.

There's a report in the Washington Free Beacon that some Soros-funded fake news network is operating in Nevada. Now it's literally an entity that tries to look like a real news entity but their only purpose is fake news for the benefit of Democrats. So you've got a Soros-funded entity that's literally doing fake news stuff. And when I say fake news I don't mean they're real news that says things are fake. They're not even a real news entity. They're just pretending to be one so they can do fake stuff. Now that's what's happening without Russia and Iran. They can't compete with Soros. He's already got the misinformation thing all wrapped up.

Well but at least the government is forthcoming with information when citizens or Congress ask for it. Oh wait. Also the Washington Free Beacon is saying that the Biden-Harris administration, they're stonewalling Congress who is asking for information about the US nonprofits that may or may not have been behind bankrolling the pro-Hamas protesters. So the House Education and Oversight Committee they want to subpoena the information. Apparently the government has some kind of information that would say what kind of nonprofits were funding the protesters. Huh, wouldn't you like to know that? Well I would but the government isn't going to tell it. Do you know why? Because it might be accurate information. Have I ever mentioned to you that if information matters it's all fake? Well this might be a situation where they have some real information and the oversight committee would like to see it because it might really matter who is funding them and that will not be made available according to the current situation. They're just going to ignore the request because the last thing the government wants is accurate information in the public.

All right, there's a September interest rate cut that's likely, say all the smart people. How many of you could have predicted that there would be an interest rate cut in the few months before the election? Well maybe it's a coincidence. Maybe the people who are supposedly independent in this interest rate stuff, maybe they're not so independent. But I'm pretty sure that I could have predicted it. So what does it mean that I could have predicted it? If you had asked me six months ago Scott do you think that the administration in charge would be so lucky that the independent, the Fed would lower the interest rate just to make everything look wonderful before election? I would have said yes. Now it could be that that was just going to happen anyway because that was a natural evolution of the economy. But I'd like to point out I would have predicted it for whatever that's worth.

Well the DNC is rolling on. I have real trouble watching it because it creeps me out. Is anybody else having that? Like I really wanted to watch more of the DNC because it felt like I should be informed but the more I thought about it it's not really moving anybody's needle anywhere is it? How many people could possibly stomach watching the DNC who had not already totally made up their mind that this is their team? Who in the world who is just casually interested in politics and has not yet made up their mind could watch that? It was just completely unwatchable crap. Oh my God. And then Tim Walz comes out and he's, I don't know if he's adopted this just for the campaign or it's natural, but he's gesticulating wildly to the crowd and these somewhat exaggerated, you know his hand when Harris is waving to the crowd she puts one hand up and Walz is standing right next to her and he's got two hands up. First of all do not gesticulate more than the top of the ticket. So Tim Walz can I give you some advice? It goes like this. If you're standing right next to the top of the ticket and the top of the ticket has one hand up waving to the crowd and accepting their applause don't put both hands up and don't act like you're jumping up and down because you're taking attention from the top of the ticket. That's not cool. That's not cool at all. You need to be a vice president so act like a freaking vice president. Look what the top of the ticket is doing body language wise and do that even if your instinct is not to do that. That's your job. Your job is to do what she's doing. Was Harris handling it better than him? I thought so. I think a professional approach to massive applause makes you look pretty strong right? But jumping up and down because you got the applause makes you look like a cheerleader. So I'm going to compliment Harris. She looked like a leader. Tim Walz looked like a cheerleader. I guess they're both leaders but one's a cheerleader.

And then if you didn't see it there is a hilarious meme of Richard Simmons now deceased I believe, Richard Simmons who is the exercise guru who was very effusive and when he would come out to the crowd he'd be both hands are up and he'd be dancing and bowing and blowing kisses stuff. And you see it side by side with Tim Walz coming out to greet the crowd. It does look like Richard Simmons. Now to me and I'm going to say it again Tim Walz is so creepy I just can't even stand a second of him. And it's not because he's a Democrat right. I could watch Obama all day long. I could watch Bill Clinton all day long. Even Hillary Clinton who I really really didn't like as a candidate I mean I didn't have a creepy reaction to it. I just didn't like her. But he gives me a genuine creep out. Does anybody else get that? And I don't know what it's about. I don't have a specific idea what's behind that but oh my God the creepiness level is just off the chart. I think that's why he started with the weird thing to take pressure off himself being so creepy. That's just my take.

Let's see then the DNC mostly wanted to talk about Trump's character and some hoaxes and lies about Trump and they didn't mention crime of course because that's not a strong topic of theirs. But they want you to know that Trump's a bad person. He's so bad. Trump's bad. Their audience will never notice that their focus on Trump is because they're trying to make you forget that they don't have the goods and that the things they've suggested for policies are batshit crazy. They're not just Democrat versus Republican. They found a whole new category that's neither Democrat nor Republican. It's just guaranteed failure. Yeah her tax plan and you know well we've talked about it.

So I'll say again that I think all the hoaxes about Trump that the DNC speakers have presented, they continue to find people. Hoax drinking bleach, hoax, hoax, hoax, hoax. I think they know they're not true and they know that if they can make the Republicans get mad and talk about it oh they're hoaxing us again they're hoaxing us that they'll have less pressure to talk about policies or to have Harris in front of the press. So as a distraction the hoaxes are really working. Worked on me.

Well Oprah is at the DNC and she said quote I have been on the receiving end of racism, sexism and income inequality but somehow she fought through and now she's worth billions of dollars and got invited to the DNC. So anyway but here's the funniest part of that. The way CNN was covering her speech. So CNN's got the camera on Oprah and Oprah's going on and Oprah says and by the way the Vigilant Fox account on X sees that Oprah while she's talking and mocking JD Vance. She's mocking him about the childless cat lady comment. And as Oprah is mocking him about childless cat ladies CNN decides to cut to a closeup of an audience member who is a woman who may or may not be childless and a cat lady. Now there's no mention of whether she's childless or a cat lady but the fact that they cut to her was hilarious. And childless cat ladies and suddenly there's this big old face of somebody in the audience who's really could have been, I don't know but she could be a childless cat lady. She had that look.

All right Bill Clinton was a speaker too and he hilariously mispronounced Kamala as Camela. Now am I the only person who's noticed how many Black Americans call Kamala Kamala? Black Americans do not pronounce her name correctly. White Americans do not pronounce her name correctly. Ex-presidents do not pronounce her name correctly. Maybe it's the name. Maybe it's the name. There's something about that name that's difficult to remember how to pronounce it. Now part of the reason it's hard to remember how to pronounce it is that so many people who are in the business are mispronouncing it. If I didn't see people who should know how to do it consistently doing it wrong I would remember it correctly. So maybe it's just the name. Can we find a little common ground there? I would believe we should all be able to meet at this place which is we'd all like to use people's proper name. You know if we're being polite human beings we do want to use their name correctly but it's hard. I think that's the better framing is it's just hard to remember. You know nobody needs a nickname more than she does. She needs a nickname like a positive nickname from her own team. Something that isn't coach. Trying to think. Go Tim Walz coach is just giving me every creepy vibe. Oh my God I just I can't even watch it.

Anyway MSNBC's Rachel Maddow she was on air talking about how happy everybody was that Tim Walz was giving his speech and she actually said this about the on-air talent at MSNBC that they were literally got up and danced in jubilation to Tim Walz. That's the news. So the news people whose job it is to tell you the news, now obviously they're opinion people but they're on a news network, they say they danced in jubilation. Nobody. Yeah thank you. I see the wrap up messages. I'll wrap up pretty soon. I've got about five more minutes so I should be fine. Thank you.

Anyway well that tells you everything you need to know. If they're literally dancing to the happiness that one team could win. Daniel Dale the most embarrassing job in the world which is to be the political fact checker and ignore most of the lies by one side. They brought him on to fact check the claim by one of the DNC people that Trump wrote Project 2025 which he did not. So Daniel Dale to his credit says that Trump is not named as an author of the document and then he went on to debunk all of the other. No he didn't. Now I don't know what else Daniel Dale debunked but I guarantee he didn't debunk any of the big ones. So I think you have to see this debunk in the context of misinformation. Here's why. If you were watching that and you saw that the only thing that got debunked was that one claim about that document which has the authors listed right on it but Daniel Dale could say he's n